The Republican's Internet Gambling Bill

[Zeb_Carter]

So tell me .. what right does the Imperial Federal Government of the United States have to tell a private business -- a credit card company or a bank -- that they cannot process payments that settle bets made on the Internet?

This is a matter of freedom When someone places a bet on the Internet nobody's rights are being violated. No person is being denied their right to life, liberty or property through the placement of that bet. There is no role for the government to play here. Either we are free, or we serve as subjects to the government. Do people lose money gambling on the Internet? Of course they do! People lose money investing in stock, bonds and futures contracts also! Should we make them illegal as well? Should we forbid American banks from processing payments made to buy stock or bonds?

This is where the libertarian in me really gets ticked. We in this country are going to have to make up our minds at some point. Either we are going to move toward freedom, or we are going to continue moving toward a system where the particular group in power gets to force its moral code on all others through the police power of government.

The sponsors of this bill will tell you that families are hurt by their breadwinners pissing all of that money away on Internet gambling. Perhaps so. Shall we sit down right now and make a list of all of the human activities that can end up hurting a family?

Let's start with smoking. Smokers make less money. Smokers are sick more often. Smokers pay higher rates for insurance. Smokers die sooner. Smokers pay much, much more for basic medical care. Smokers make those who live and work with them ill. For these reasons and more perhaps we should just outlaw tobacco! Frankly, one of the reasons I would like to see that is just because I know how completely nutso the smokers would go.

How about another federal law ... this one banning smoking.

 

[angelicminx]

Either we are free, or we serve as subjects to the government.

This is where the libertarian in me really gets ticked. We in this country are going to have to make up our minds at some point. Either we are going to move toward freedom, or we are going to continue moving toward a system where the particular group in power gets to force its moral code on all others through the police power of government.

Freedom is an illusion. We are going to continue moving toward a totalitarian government. I hold a small glimmer of hope that isn't true, but I'm not kidding myself. But, there's still not a place that's better.

The sponsors of this bill will tell you that families are hurt by their breadwinners pissing all of that money away on Internet gambling. Perhaps so. Shall we sit down right now and make a list of all of the human activities that can end up hurting a family?

Families are hurt by their breadwinner pissing all of the money away on gambling, period. But the sponsors don't want to bring that up because they most likely support the lottery, horse racing, dog racing and other legal gambling.

Let's start with smoking. Smokers make less money. Smokers are sick more often. Smokers pay higher rates for insurance. Smokers die sooner. Smokers pay much, much more for basic medical care. Smokers make those who live and work with them ill. For these reasons and more perhaps we should just outlaw tobacco! Frankly, one of the reasons I would like to see that is just because I know how completely nutso the smokers would go.

How about another federal law ... this one banning smoking.

Do smokers make less money? I didn't think only those in the lower income classes chose to smoke. Hmm. I knew smokers HAD less money, but I didn't know they MADE less as well.

They are trying to outlaw tobacco, or hadn't you noticed? The government has paid tobacco farmers to NOT grow tobacco. I know this because I have friends who's tobacco base was bought out. They get a lump sum payment every year to not grow it.

I'm a smoker, in case you didn't know, and I'm already 'nutso'. (I know you knew that, you were just too kind to say so, lol.)

I get pissed off every time a new smoking law is passed. Even when I quit for 6 years, it pissed me off.

The ban on smoking has already begun. There's no smoking allowed on Federal or State property here. A lot of cities have banned smoking in restaurants and bars, as well as other public places.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Freedom is an illusion. We are going to continue moving toward a totalitarian government. I hold a small glimmer of hope that isn't true, but I'm not kidding myself. But, there's still not a place that's better.

This I agree with but, we need to work harder not to have our government turn into an all encompassing blanet of rules and regulations.

Families are hurt by their breadwinner pissing all of the money away on gambling, period. But the sponsors don't want to bring that up because they most likely support the lottery, horse racing, dog racing and other legal gambling.

And also day trading, futures and commodity markets. Guess wrong there and you can lose your shirt and pants.

Do smokers make less money? I didn't think only those in the lower income classes chose to smoke. Hmm. I knew smokers HAD less money, but I didn't know they MADE less as well.

They are trying to outlaw tobacco, or hadn't you noticed? The government has paid tobacco farmers to NOT grow tobacco. I know this because I have friends who's tobacco base was bought out. They get a lump sum payment every year to not grow it.

I'm a smoker, in case you didn't know, and I'm already 'nutso'. (I know you knew that, you were just too kind to say so, lol.)

I get pissed off every time a new smoking law is passed. Even when I quit for 6 years, it pissed me off.

The ban on smoking has already begun. There's no smoking allowed on Federal or State property here. A lot of cities have banned smoking in restaurants and bars, as well as other public places.

You know I don't care what another human being does in the privacy of their home. If they want to smoke then fine, but in public venues I really don't want to smell the smoke or inhale the fumes, even though I am an ex-smoker.

 

[angelicminx]

This I agree with but, we need to work harder not to have our government turn into an all encompassing blanet of rules and regulations.

I totally agree, but I'm afraid that's the direction we are moving, and the people are welcoming it with open arms. Whether they mean to or not.

You know I don't care what another human being does in the privacy of their home. If they want to smoke then fine, but in public venues I really don't want to smell the smoke or inhale the fumes, even though I am an ex-smoker.

Ahh, but then we get into rules and regulations and the removal of freedom. I understand the point you are trying to make and there are places that even I, a smoker, don't want to smell the smoke. But, now here's the kicker, do I want to take the choice away? Nope. It's all a matter of choices and the freedom to make that choice.

What if we left the choice to the business owner? There would be some that allowed smoking and some that would not. At that point, the customer is left with the choice of patronizing the business or not. If a smoker chose to enter an establishment that did not allow smoking, then they are choosing to follow the owners rules. And vice versa. It leaves the choice to the business owner and not to the government's heavy handed control.

When my daughter was an infant, and until she was about 6, I did not take her into places that allowed smoking. I also asked my family and my ex's family to smoke outdoors when we visited. If they chose to decline my request, I made the choice to leave.

At outdoor events, I'm very uncomfortable smoking if it's crowded, afraid that my smoke will bother someone. But, I'm glad I have the choice and will occasionally ask those next to me if they mind if I smoke.

I don't think smoking in clothing stores should be allowed. Not only is it a fire hazard, but it takes away the non-smoker's choice to buy clothes that don't smell like cigarettes.

I don't think smoking should be allowed in grocery stores. There's not enough business to allow more than one grocery store in a neighborhood, in my opinion, and that limits the choice for the non-smoker.

Inside other buildings, well, I guess it would depend on the business. Outside, on the premises? No way do I think it should be banned. That infringes on a smoker's rights, in my opinion.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I'm not worried about it Zeb. This is the Conservative Christian Right putting pressure on Congress. The Dems will clean up the mess after the first of the year while the Republicans are licking their wounds and trying not to be called before House Investigating Committees.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I'm not worried about it Zeb. This is the Conservative Christian Right putting pressure on Congress. The Dems will clean up the mess after the first of the year while the Republicans are licking their wounds and trying not to be called before House Investigating Committees.

I understand that, but the answer it's "More Government" the answer lies with the individual.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I understand that, but the answer it's "More Government" the answer lies with the individual.

True, Zeb

But you still have to have the government to clean up it's own mess so the rest of us can go on with out lives. We don't have the option of a "Signing Letter" like Bush does. The law is the law. We still need Congress to reverse the shitty laws that been foisted upon is.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I totally agree, but I'm afraid that's the direction we are moving, and the people are welcoming it with open arms. Whether they mean to or not.




Ahh, but then we get into rules and regulations and the removal of freedom. I understand the point you are trying to make and there are places that even I, a smoker, don't want to smell the smoke. But, now here's the kicker, do I want to take the choice away? Nope. It's all a matter of choices and the freedom to make that choice.

What if we left the choice to the business owner? There would be some that allowed smoking and some that would not. At that point, the customer is left with the choice of patronizing the business or not. If a smoker chose to enter an establishment that did not allow smoking, then they are choosing to follow the owners rules. And vice versa. It leaves the choice to the business owner and not to the government's heavy handed control.

When my daughter was an infant, and until she was about 6, I did not take her into places that allowed smoking. I also asked my family and my ex's family to smoke outdoors when we visited. If they chose to decline my request, I made the choice to leave.

At outdoor events, I'm very uncomfortable smoking if it's crowded, afraid that my smoke will bother someone. But, I'm glad I have the choice and will occasionally ask those next to me if they mind if I smoke.

I don't think smoking in clothing stores should be allowed. Not only is it a fire hazard, but it takes away the non-smoker's choice to buy clothes that don't smell like cigarettes.

I don't think smoking should be allowed in grocery stores. There's not enough business to allow more than one grocery store in a neighborhood, in my opinion, and that limits the choice for the non-smoker.

Inside other buildings, well, I guess it would depend on the business. Outside, on the premises? No way do I think it should be banned. That infringes on a smoker's rights, in my opinion.

Personally I haven't proposed any rules or regs against smoking, although I do feel, with what we now know about smoking, that smoking in a car with a child should be considered child abuse as well as taking a child into an establishment that allows smoking.

These rants are of someone who has gotten old and seen his mortality so don't take them too seriously. Although I have lived through a lot and seen a lot of things that have made my hair curl and brought tears to my eyes.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

True, Zeb

But you still have to have the government to clean up it's own mess so the rest of us can go on with out lives. We don't have the option of a "Signing Letter" like Bush does. The law is the law. We still need Congress to reverse the shitty laws that been foisted upon is.

But believing Democrats will clean it up is all but laughable. The Republicans and Democrats are so much alike these days that it is hard to tell them a part. So don't put too much faith in a party that still allows the likes of Ted Kennedy to be a memeber.

 

[angelicminx]

Personally I haven't proposed any rules or regs against smoking, although I do feel, with what we now know about smoking, that smoking in a car with a child should be considered child abuse as well as taking a child into an establishment that allows smoking.

These rants are of someone who has gotten old and seen his mortality so don't take them too seriously. Although I have lived through a lot and seen a lot of things that have made my hair curl and brought tears to my eyes.

I'm glad that we can have a discussion that doesn't turn personal.

I'm on the fence about smoking in the car and taking a child into a smoking establishment. I'm not sure if I'd go to the extreme of calling it child abuse. The term 'child abuse' is so powerful and brings to mind so many intense and horrific images. I understand your feelings on the matter, however.

As to being old... no fucking way, pardon my french. I don't care what your age says, there's no way you're old. Rant away, dear Zeb.

 

[angela146]

So tell me .. what right does the Imperial Federal Government of the United States have to tell a private business -- a credit card company or a bank -- that they cannot process payments that settle bets made on the Internet?

The US Constitution. In particular, Article I Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[angela146]

In the midst of a lot of rumors flying around the web about the Online Gaming bill, here is some actual information.

First from the poker players' aliance: http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/alerts/Analysis_of_Internet_Gambling_Prohibition_Act.pdf

Second, here is a link to an article by Allyn Jaffrey Shulman. She is a writer for CardPlayer magazine. She is also a poker player and a lawyer.

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/news_story/1428?class=PokerNews

 

[JamesSD]

I don't plan to stop playing online poker. I'll figure a way around it (helps that I'm a winning player who doesn't have to deposit)

The law is retarded. Either we ban ALL forms of online gambling, or none. "Horse Racing is ok..."? Please.

Poker involves way more skill than betting on horses.

Legalize internet gambling, and tax it. Easy answer.

 

[colddiesel]

A different angle?

The British financial press has a different angle on this. Internet gambling is dominated by British and Chinese(Hongkong) companies. It was taking several $Billion out of the USA annually.

The expectation here is that the US government will introduce some form of internet gambling which will restrict the business sourced from the USA to USA based businesses.The financial papers here are suggesting that US politicians will receive enormous campaign contributions from US gambling interests in exchange for new laws which will put the money in the hands of American gambling enterprizes.

Personally I don't think US politicians would be that corrupt- would they?

 

[angelicminx]

The British financial press has a different angle on this. Internet gambling is dominated by British and Chinese(Hongkong) companies. It was taking several $Billion out of the USA annually.

The expectation here is that the US government will introduce some form of internet gambling which will restrict the business sourced from the USA to USA based businesses.The financial papers here are suggesting that US politicians will receive enormous campaign contributions from US gambling interests in exchange for new laws which will put the money in the hands of American gambling enterprizes.

Personally I don't think US politicians would be that corrupt- would they?

LOL. Of course they would!

 

[Seattle Zack]

It's interesting that this law was piggybacked onto port security "Anti-Terrorism" legislation at the last minute ... and it also excludes wire transfers on horse wagering, which is a big moneymaker for many states.

In reality, this legislation will have little or no effect on the current internet gambling community. Although credit card companies are prohibited from distributing money to internet gambling sites, there are services like NetTeller and FirePay that regularly provide this service. Already legal challenges are mounting against this provision.

I love to gamble, and I do it nearly every day (although, according to our new Washington State law, I'm now a felon). Fucking Seahawks cost me three hundred bucks Sunday night.

--Zack

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think the reasons the government has a grudge against internet gambling is that it is hard to tax, it takes money away from casino gambling in places like Nevada and Atlantic City. They are not really opposed to persons losing all their monehy and going into debt, although that is the justification they give. If they were actually concerned, governments would get out of the business themselves.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I think the reasons the government has a grudge against internet gambling is that it is hard to tax, it takes money away from casino gambling in places like Nevada and Atlantic City. They are not really opposed to persons losing all their monehy and going into debt, although that is the justification they give. If they were actually concerned, governments would get out of the business themselves.

Yep. It's about the government not being able to figure out a way to make money on it. They could care less about the victims of Internet gambling.

Funny ol' world.